All but ten of the stories of Sherlock Holmes, known as "the Canon," shared with the world by Dr. Watson's literary agent, Arthur Conan Doyle, are no longer protected by U.S. copyright law and the characters may be used by current authors, according to a December 23, 2013 ruling from a U.S. District Court in Illinois.

Click here to read the District Court opinion of some significance to my own retirement plans.  Click here to read the brief filed by the Conan Doyle Estate in its appeal to the 7th Circuit.

Meca Walker has the experience and the love of family attorneys.  John Schmude has only been a lawyer for five years, but he has the support of many Republican activists, especially those in the so-called "pro life" movement.  If you give him the chance, Schmude may convince you he should be elected over his more experienced rival.

I was really surprised that the ladies running the "Real Republican Moms for Good Judges"  PAC endorsed Schmude and I think they even surprised themselves.  I organized the PAC's seminar to raise the PAC's funds, but I am neither a mom nor a Republican and those four independent minded women attorneys have made their own decisions, a few of which are contrary to what I would have done.  The lady attorneys heard the debate between Schmude and Walker at their seminar and they saw that the results of the "straw poll" overwhelmingly supported Walker.  Yet, after interviewing both candidates at length, the women endorsed Schmude.  Given that these women lawyers all know and like Meca Walker, that is a real tribute to Mr. Schmude and the case he is able to make for total change in the 247th.

I have gotten to know Mr. Schmude and I really like the guy even though we have some big differences on political and religious philosophies.  Schmude is genuine, nice and intelligent and he has a lot of good ideas on how to make the 247th more efficient and more fair.  I actually suspect that Schmude will make a pretty good judge.  Yet, Schmude does lack legal experience.  I have issues with how the 247th court is currently run and I think at some point an Associate Judge has to refuse to participate in policies that are illegal or unconstitutional.  However, Walker has the experience and the judicial track record (and the sublime smile). We already know she is a good judge.  On the other hand, Walker should not have accepted the illegal contributions from the family and employees of the car dealer with a big case in her court.  Walker is now agreeing with Schmude that Hellums' policy of taking kids from parents just because a parenting class was not taken has to stop.  I go back and forth, in part, because I personally like both of these folks. 

My opinion does not count much in any Republican circles, but as long as I had not had a case in the 247th recently to remind me how jacked up that court is, I would probably choose M.L. Walker over Schmude if I were to ever to vote in a Republican primary (an unlikely event indeed). 

However, I predict that Schmude will win the primary run-off, which is as much a comment on how the GOP primaries are decided as it is on Mr. Schmude himself.  A sure sign that Schmude is now seen by many as a likely winner is the fact that Bobby Newman and friends held a small, private dinner fundraiser for Schmude.  Walker outspent Schmude 20 to 1 in the primary and Schmude came in first.  Fundraising in this race is now about even for the primary runoff.  More evidence that the smart money is betting on Schmude is demonstrated by that paragon of political bravery, Gary Polland, who is now sticking his neck out and endorsing both Walker and Schmude (talk about hedging your bets!).  Polland must assume that one of the two candidates he is endorsing will still hand out CPS appointments to him.



The good news is that there is a Democrat running for this position and perhaps we should all get to know Chip Wells and find out what his 37 years of legal experience counts for.  Check out http://www.chipwells.com/.


 
It is disgusting to me as a lawyer and a citizen to see how nasty the race for the Republican nomination for the 212th District Court in Galveston County has become. The two survivors going into the run-off election next week are Patricia Grady and Bret Griffin.  Three factors explain the revolting and misleading attacks being hurled in this race: (1) big money is involved because the fight between Grady and Griffin has become a battle between multi-millionaire plaintiff's attorney Tony Buzbee (who is Griffin's mentor and biggest supporter) and State Senator Larry Taylor, assisted by anti-lawsuit business interests, who support Grady; (2) the ugly civil war ripping the county GOP party apart is being played out in this race; and (3) Bret Griffin is allowing folks to campaign for him who are sleazy, lying political lowlifes who are comfortable with half-truths and spreading false rumors.

Griffin's supporters have gone beyond the pale of human decency.  For one thing, it is pretty sad when one elected Republican official is spreading totally false and mean rumors about the top Republican elected official in the county and a Republican judicial candidate, like Patricia Grady, who is happily married to another elected Republican official.  Why not whisper to folks that Pat Grady has committed murder with the help of illegal immigrants or gone on vacation with Bill Clinton while you are at it?  If Mrs. Grady's opponents want to talk about her legal experience or philosophy, that is fair game.  But to LIE and spread false rumors about such a good woman is abhorrent and does not live up to the "Christian" and "family" values the GOP always claims it represents. I am very proud of how Patricia Grady confronted the officeholder who was lying about her and made the scumbag admit what she had done.  That tells me just how tough Mrs. Grady can be.

Crazy amounts of money are being spent in this race.  Voters are getting 5 - 10 mailers from each candidate plus, as noted below, outside PAC's are sending nasty mailers as well.  Candidates have paid for television ads, phone banks and block walkers.  It would cost a judicial candidate well over $2 million to run a primary campaign like this in Harris County.  But, this primary runoff in Galveston County may involve only a total of 6,000 votes after barely 16,000 voted in the March primary.

 

Bret Griffin is in deep trouble in this race and he is acting like someone desperate to keep the judgeship Governor Perry appointed him to over the objections of Senator Taylor.  Griffin is a former prosecutor who went into private practice and he has represented dozens of criminal defendants.  Representing criminal defendants is a totally proper and honorable thing to do and it shows that Griffin has broad experience in both sides of the criminal law world, which is a good thing since this district court handles both felony criminal cases and civil cases.  Yet, Griffin is attacking Grady for also having represented criminal defendants.   

 

Here is one mailer sent out in this race:

 

   

These attack mailers say they are from "Safe Nation PAC, Inc." and that they are not authorized by any candidate.  Here is another even more repulsive mailer that just arrived from this same PAC that looks like a Yellow Pages ad for Pat Grady, who has not actively practiced law privately in several years:

The statements in this outrageous advertisement are simply not true.  At one time Grady did practice some criminal law, but most of her career has been focused on children in CPS cases or in public service working for the County.

It is very mysterious why a Super PAC from Georgia chaired by an Atlanta political consultant would get involved in a state judicial race in Galveston County, Texas.

 

This PAC, according to the Federal Election Commission, has given more in the last four years to Democrats than to Republicans, but all of the other candidates were either seeking federal office or state office in Georgia.  These "hit pieces" from the PAC in Georgia that Bret Griffin supposedly has nothing to do with say they were mailed using Permit No. 2441 from Houston, Texas.  Interestingly, that same bulk mail permit number is used on Judge Griffin's own political mailers.  Griffin's mail pieces also use the exact same unflattering photograph of Patricia Grady as the Super PAC mailers.  These Super PAC hit pieces need to be investigated by the Texas Ethics Commission and the District Attorney.  We may never know who provided the money for these mailers, but besides being so untrue and unfair, the lawyer funding these mailers has almost certainly used this PAC to illegally circumvent the $2,500 per person and $5,000 per law firm contribution limit that applies to Galveston County judicial races.
 
 
Griffin got appointed by Governor Perry over the objections of Senator Larry Taylor apparently because of the pull Tony Buzbee has with Perry. That itself is odd given how often Perry lambasts trial lawyers.  Money from Buzbee and other personal injury attorneys is primarily funding Griffin's campaign. Buzbee is even using meetings of clients in his mass chemical exposure cases to help his protege.  Here is part of an e-mail from Galveston County Republican Chair Barbara Meeks to her GOP e-mail list (a friend shared it with me as I am not on Meek's list):


Click here to read a Galveston News story about how Buzbee flooded the Texas City early voting center with his clients (and probably really helped Texas City lawyer Anne Darring in her race for the 306th).

I admit I am amused to see the Republican purebloods upset that the unwashed common folks are voting in their primary.  But, at least this tactic by Buzbee is (1) clever, (2) 100% legal, and (3) done openly for the world to see.  Buzbee is motivating folks to vote and getting them to the polls, which is how democracy is supposed to work.



Sadly, Mrs. Grady is also attacking Griffin for having represented criminal defendants, just like she did.  Grady is also hitting Griffin for being a plaintiff's personal injury attorney.  While true, that fact also merely shows Griffin has civil experience which is also needed to effectively preside in the 212th. Apparently, in Republican circles, representing injury and chemical exposure victims against big corporations is a bad thing and it is a shame that Grady is pandering to that ignorance instead of just touting her own impressive credentials.  At least Grady's statements are all true and she is making them herself rather than hiding behind an out-of-state Super PAC to lie about her opponent.

Judge Griffin should be ashamed and embarrassed by what is being done in his name and he surely had the power to stop it all.  Something tells me he is not bothered by it at all and that, if true, would be a telling indictment of his ethics and character.  If Griffin is elected using these dirty tactics, the Galveston County Republican Party should be embarrassed and also realize it has a big problem.  If his annointed candidate, Griffin, wins, Buzbee is going to think he owns Galveston County.  We will need some judges with fortitude to stand up to Buzbee after this.

Politics and the desire to win seems able to make good people do bad things.  Truly believing that you are the best candidate should not allow your morals to slip and excuse unethical behavior by your campaign or your supporters.  However, a candidate who is being relentlessly attacked, especially with false or misleading allegations, simply has to respond.  Politics is so unpleasant that it makes the world of child custody litigation look genteel and proper in comparison!


   Patricia Grady is running for the 212th District Court in Galveston County.

  It is a shame that political candidates for judge cannot act like they did as lawyers in the courtroom.  Attorneys can strongly disagree in court but we usually do so with friendship and courtesy and some respect for ethics and the truth.  It is no wonder that most  attorneys would never demean themselves by sinking into politics and running for judge.

Perhaps in response to my newsletter, Judge Newey was named the first recipient of the "Outstanding Jurist Award" from the Berta Raborn Inns of Court on May 15th.

My position on good Judge Newey is set forth below, but first I must provide these three caveats:

First, I have no real track record with  Judge Newey, but I know he is greatly liked by many attorneys and he has spent many years in the trenches serving out justice as best he can in our difficult arena of law.   Judge Newey deserves plenty of credit for that.  He is a nice, personable guy who shows up and works hard.

Second, I am in no position to "cast stones" because I have made plenty of mistakes as a lawyer, boss, father and spouse and a newsletter critiquing my past bad decisions would be lengthy.  However, my many past misdeeds were not done as a judge sworn to uphold the law with the duty to protect children and families.

Third, I realize that the heir-apparent to the 311th Throne of Swords, Alicia Franklin, will almost certainly keep Judge Newey and someday soon I will appear in front of him.  I know Judge Newey is not going away anytime soon, regardless of what I write.

I am simply saying that there can be be no doubt that Judge Newey helped carry out Judge Pratt's crazy and illegal policies.  Newey may have smiled, shrugged his shoulders and apologetically said, "I am not allowed to do that" or "an agreement like that has to go to Judge Pratt," but he was in fact part of what was being done to families that we all know was so very wrong.

Here is what one Texas appellate court said about the duty judges owe to our system of justice:

We recognize our obligation not only to ensure the proper administration of justice in this Court but also our duty to the system of justice as a whole. We hasten to add that we are not merely the gatekeepers who monitor and patrol the conduct of members of the Bar. While we owe a duty to the legal system as a whole and to the administration of justice, we are ever mindful that the judiciary also has a duty to the lawyers who appear before them, to the public at large which elects them, and even to other members of the judiciary to ensure that our democracy is preserved and protected and that professionalism reigns supreme. We take this duty seriously.

Nothing is as bad as what Nazi Germany did to people and the world.  Obviously, what Denise Pratt did or what Bonnie Hellums does not cannot compare to the horrors of Hitler's Germany.  However, the ethical questions posed by one of the best courtroom movies ever, the 1961 Judgment at Nuremburg, are applicable to the issue of what an associate judge should when he or she realizes his or her boss is committing illegal acts and seriously harming families and children.

In Judgment at Nuremburg, Spencer tract played a war crimes judge who hears the case of a respected German judge who kept his post when Hitler came to power and then followed the new regime's terrible laws.  The American judge cannot understand why the German jurist just did not resign his position rather than make immoral rulings based on the Nazi laws.

I have rewritten a scholarly synopsis of that classic movie and changed a few words regarding the climatic scene when the German judge takes the stand and tries to explain his actions:

[The defendant former judge] then noted that, even once the complicit realized the unconscionability and [illegality of the presiding judge's policies], they stayed at their posts to help things from getting even worse, but predictably, failed to derail the atrocities of the times.  He agreed that claiming he did not know the extent of the horrors was really an admission that he did not inquire as he should have.  [The judge] admitted it was not a defense that he once felt that if he resigned, someone else with less empathy would have simply taken his place and carried out orders.

The judge explained that loyalty and allegiance had motiviated most of them to the point that they sacrificed their own personal senses of morality.  In a deeply personal, yet self-damning statement, he conceded that most of them should have known better, and that those that had gone along had betrayed true justice. 

At long last, the issue at the heart of the case becomes clear - the choice that the [associate judge] had to make was between allegiance to their [boss, the presiding judge] and allegiance to their own senses of right and wrong.